County panel weighs new AR3 category and tighter rules for AR1-to-AR2 splits to protect rural character

Effingham County officials and members of the public debated a package of proposed changes to agricultural-residential zoning on July 1, including a steering-committee recommendation to add an AR3 zoning class with a 2.5‑acre minimum lot size and to tightly limit when parcels can be rezoned to the existing AR2 category.

The changes were discussed at length during the county’s work session as staff and the steering committee sought ways to slow one-acre subdivision patterns in rural areas while preserving the traditional practice of carving small lots to keep family near one another.

The issue matters because many residents said they chose to live in agricultural-residential (AR) areas on the county’s future land-use map in part for guaranteed low density. County staff said more frequent requests to subdivide AR1 parcels into AR2 lots — and the occasional developer‑style slicing of larger properties into multiple 1‑acre parcels — risk eroding that rural character.

What staff and the steering committee proposed - AR1 would remain a minimum 5‑acre zoning district with most current setbacks unchanged. - AR2 would remain on the books with a 1‑acre minimum, but the steering committee recommended restricting new rezonings into AR2 to two narrow circumstances: family subdivisions (documented with an affidavit) and limited “conformance” cases where existing lots are legally nonconforming and must be rezoned so they can be altered in a minor way. In practice, that would prevent routine commercial or speculative rezonings into 1‑acre lots. - AR3 would be added as a new district with a 2.5‑acre minimum, intended to be the available route for most non‑family subdivisions that were previously going to AR2. - Accessory dwelling rules were also discussed: staff recommended removing a family‑only restriction so an AR1 owner could place a second unit and rent it regardless of relationship to the primary resident.

Committee, staff and public concerns Staff acknowledged enforcement limits for a family‑subdivision affidavit and discussed tracking rezoning histories. As staff put it during the meeting, rezoning records could be checked when an owner returns for subsequent requests, and a time limit (for example, a waiting period before another subdivision is allowed) could be recorded as a condition on a rezoning.

Planning-board member Ryan Thompson, a steering‑committee participant, said AR3 "is another tool in the toolbox we can choose to use or not," framing the proposal as an option the board could apply selectively. Steering‑committee member Lindsay Smith — who also identified herself as Planning and Zoning District 5 and a local real‑estate agent — argued against curtailing private property transactions, saying restrictions on family transfers could lower the value or marketability of a parcel for heirs.

Many members of the public pressed for strict protections. One resident said they bought into the area because of a 5‑acre minimum and did not want smaller lots erected nearby. Others urged finding ways to preserve the county’s rural character without absolutely barring family transfers or creating large numbers of newly nonconforming lots.

Options presented to the board Staff and the committee presented several paths: do nothing (decide rezoning case‑by‑case), change AR2’s minimum lot size, eliminate AR2 entirely (making it a “zombie” district where no new rezonings are allowed), or add AR3 at 2.5 acres and restrict AR2 to the two limited uses described above. Staff also recommended removing the current ability to drop to a half‑acre when water or sewer is present.

Formal action and next steps The Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution extending the county’s rezoning moratorium through Aug. 19, 2025, allowing staff and the steering committee more time to refine ordinance language and to bring a consolidated zoning-amendment package back for formal readings.

The county will return the revised ordinance language for additional review; if the board adopts AR3, staff said the district would provide a mid‑level option to limit the creation of multiple 1‑acre lots in agricultural areas while preserving a pathway for families and limited conformance cases.

What remains unresolved The board and the steering committee did not adopt a final enforcement formula for family affidavits, a precise waiting period, or whether to “zombie” AR2 entirely. Staff committed to drafting ordinance language reflecting the committee discussions and to circulate it before the next reading.

Next steps: planning staff will return with revised ordinance text and address public comments before the second reading and public hearing on the amendments.